Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitliabilitysummary judgmenttrustwillsustained
liabilityappealtrialmotionsummary judgmenttrustwillmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Birdsong v. Jones, 222 Mo.App. 768, 8 S.W.2d 98
View Case »
Estate of Spirtos, 34 Cal.App.3d 479, 109 Cal.Rptr. 919
View Case »
Faville v. Burns, 2011 IL App (1st) 110335, 960 N.E.2d 99, 355 Ill.Dec. 656
View Case »
W.A.K., II ex rel. Karo v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 2976518
View Case »
Kelley v. Snow, 185 Mass. 288, 70 N.E. 89
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sligh v. First Nat. Bank of Holmes County, 735 So.2d 963

Facts

On January 30, 1993, Gene Lorance, while under the influence of alcohol, collided with William Sligh's vehicle, resulting in Sligh's paralysis. Lorance had purchased a truck from Harreld Chevrolet in 1990, financed by First National Bank, which also managed a trust for Lorance's benefit. The Slighs filed a lawsuit against both the dealership and the bank, claiming negligent entrustment and other liabilities related to the accident.

On January 30, 1993, William Sligh and Gene Lorance were involved in an automobile accident. William was paralyzed as a result of the accident. Gene Lorance was the son of Arthur and Edith Lorance. On September 7, 1988, Edith Lorance executed a trust agreement whereby an inter vivos trust consisting of $100,000 was created for the benefit of herself and her adult son Gene Lorance.

Issue

Did Harreld Chevrolet and First National Bank negligently entrust the vehicle to Gene Lorance, and were they liable for the injuries sustained by William Sligh in the accident?

The following issues are presented to this Court on appeal: I. THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR HARRELD CHEVROLET WAS ERROR. II. THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK WAS ERROR.

Rule

The court applied the doctrine of negligent entrustment, which holds that a supplier of a chattel can be liable if they know or have reason to know that the person they are entrusting it to is likely to use it in a manner that poses an unreasonable risk of harm.

The doctrine of negligent entrustment provides: One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.

Analysis

The court found that Harreld Chevrolet had no control over the vehicle after the sale and thus could not be held liable for negligent entrustment. Additionally, there was no evidence that the dealership knew of Lorance's incompetence at the time of sale. Similarly, FNB's role as a trustee did not extend to controlling Lorance's actions or finances in a way that would impose liability for the accident.

Finding no liability for negligent entrustment; no liability for supplying a dangerous instrumentality; and no proximate cause, the lower court was proper in granting summary judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of both Harreld Chevrolet and First National Bank, concluding that neither party was liable for the accident involving Gene Lorance.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Harreld Chevrolet and First National Bank prevailed in the case because the court found no evidence of negligent entrustment or control over Lorance's actions that would lead to liability.

The Slighs argue that Harreld Chevrolet's Motion for Summary judgment should not have been granted because Harreld is liable for negligent entrustment; Harreld is liable for supplying Lorance with a dangerous instrumentality; and Harreld was a proximate cause of William Sligh's injuries.

You must be